lsespdfandomcom-20200216-history
Other
Do you have a pressing general question you can't quite figure out? Then this is definitely the place to jump in ... The Question of 'Agency' Question: 'While I was reviewing some literature on participation and empowerment, one term that I came across numerous times was that of 'agency'...'agency' for resource mobilization, 'agency' for sustainability and acheivement etc. I am not quite sure as to what this term exactly means, will be grateful for a definition/explanation of the term.' from David: Good question - thanks for asking! Agency means people's capacity to take action, and in social sciences is usually contrasted with the idea of 'structure', which is what helps determine or constrain people's ability to act. Basically we need to understand both agency and structure in any situation ... e.g. a person working in an NGO has agency to make decisions and do things, but at the same times is constrained/facilitated by structures of rules, laws and hierarchies of authority. A poor person has agency to improve their life, but only within a complex set of structures. If you change structures, you can perhaps increase people's ability (agency) to act positively. If you 'empower' people, you may increase their agency, but this may not be useful unless structures are also changed. Anthony Giddens - former LSE Director! - is a key social scientist you miight like to read on agency/structure issues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Giddens --David Lewis 09:16, March 30, 2010 (UTC) Actors, Institutions and Processes Yesterday during the revision class, Hakan said the three key concepts of Social Policy are Actors, Institutions and Processes and all the lectures fit into either one of the 3 categories. My question is: Does state, civil society and market constitute actor or institution? If they are institutions who are the actors and vice versa? It is BOTH: civil society is an 'institutional' space governed by a set of rules that make it different from those operating in state/market, while civil society organisations are 'actors' that operate in that space. --David Lewis 18:34, May 1, 2010 (UTC) Another question: Where do organizations like UN, DFID, WB, USAID fit into this triangle? Are they part of civil society or market? or a different category? They are governmental organisations, or in the case of UN agencies, 'inter-governmental' organisations. So they are NOT part of civil society or market, but fully in the state/public sector. --David Lewis 18:34, May 1, 2010 (UTC) Hey Ashima! just thinking aloud..with regard to the second question.. I think WB, UN, DFID would be 'classified' as actors whose activities become institutionalized over time.. And all this while I thought that these actors would be understood as emanating from the civil society space. Rakshita23 14:33, April 27, 2010 (UTC)Rakshita Great questions, Ashima - and also a great answer, Rakshita. Wow ... the wiki is finally working, thanks to you both!! In social science, the concept of 'institutions' is often used in two slightly different ways. This can cause confusion. The first is the way I think Hakan meant it, as systems of 'rules and norms' that persist over time, like 'the state', 'the law', 'trust', or indeed perhaps, the UN. The second is when people use it interchangeably with the word 'organisation', in which case they might say UNDP is an institution, or the World Bank, or Oxfam. I would suggest sticking to the first meaning, and using organisation in the case of the second. And as you say, organisations, like individuals, groups or organisations, are 'actors' - meaning that they exercise agency. Institutions are 'structures', in the sense that actors primarily have to work within their rules (though they may also shape and change these rules). So institutions are really common to all three sectors (state, market, civil society) - and indeed, these can be seen as 'institutional sectors' because each is defined by a different dominant sets of rules (see my civil society lecture). --David Lewis 15:19, April 27, 2010 (UTC) Institutions are 'structures' (i.e. rules and norms), while organisations (like UNDP) are 'actors'. The confusion comes when some people sometimes refer to large organisations like the UN as institutions, in which case they could be seen as both actor/structure simultaneously. Remember too that there are many other kinds of institutions than just those that govern the three 'sectors'. Institutions help to structure all aspects of societies. For example, marriage is one kind of institution that helps to structure social life. Does this help? if not, don't hold back! --David Lewis 16:51, April 27, 2010 (UTC) I think I'm the only one who can't understand this. So can we say state, civil society and market consist of institutions (structures/rules and norms) and actors (eg. NGOs, business orgs etc)? Ashima.goyal 17:23, April 27, 2010 (UTC) Yes. State, civil society and market are institutions; but they also contain institutions and actors of various kinds. I think Hakan was talking about policy actors - meaning the various organisations that try to shape policy from within any of these three sectors. They try to shape policy, which also requires them to try to shape institutions too ... Different uses of these terms can get confusing ... so try to keep it simple/text based if possible Any clearer? Hakan was talking about: actors (people or orgs or movements trying to change policy) processes (the way they go about it, and the resistance they meet) institutions (the rules and norms they try to change, and the ways these structure what is possible and what is not) in the policy process ... How about also taking a look at the McGee reading I used in my lecture on policy for another maybe simpler model of policy change? --David Lewis 18:46, April 27, 2010 (UTC) Finally - one more clarification going back to the original question. Civil society, market and state are institutional fields in which sets of organisational actors operate.